Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[Fennis]

those commas are in the wrong place

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm sure this has been posted before but it's worth a look again.Interactive map regarding what your local PD has purchased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1#body_armor

Click on each category to break it down

Cool. I see Pima County, Arizona, purchased 455 night vision pieces, 282 body armor pieces, and 151 assault rifles. Maricopa County Arizona purchased 1,696 night vision pieces, 406 assault rifles, and 4 mine-resistant vehicles, but... they're probably drooling over Santa Barbara County California's purchase of 2 grenade launchers and 6 helicopters.

Again, by "purchased" you mean "got for free."

 

[timschochet]

Regarding witnesses: to be fair, I didn't believe in "John" from the Treyvon Martin case either, until he actually showed up at trial. So I was wrong about that, and I could very well be wrong about this.

But none of this really matters. I think Wilson is going to be indicted. I think he should be indicted, based on what we know. I think he likely committed a crime. I think there's is going to be a trial, and we're likely to be discussing it for months to come, just like Zimmerman. And in the end, I predict Wilson will be acquitted, because there's too much reasonable doubt, just like Zimmerman. And there will be justifiable anger, but no further rioting. Just like Zimmerman.

I also think that there will be repercussions for the terrible way the police have behaved here. Some people will resign or be fired. There will be lawsuits.

But the most important and saddest part of this whole affair is that it won't really change anything. Police departments all over this country will continue to stereotype black youths- not because the cops are evil, but because they honestly believe that it's the best way to fight crime. African-Americans will continue to feel victimized by the police, while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for their problems. Liberals will continue to side with blacks in every situation, and blame the government, conservatives, the police, and themselves for the plight of so many African-Americans, but never the African-Americans themselves. Conservatives will continue to exonerate the police in every instance, blame blacks in every instance, and refuse to acknowledge that there is any racism at all, or that the American Dream doesn't always extend itself to certain minorities the same way that it does for white people.

And so we'll continue to have these sorts of incidents for decades to come. Rinse and repeat...

unless the feds step in there is no chance Wilson is indicted. The police force will never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever let it happen.

I thought it was the district attorney's office, and not the police, who decided to indict or not indict.

 

[tom22406]

I'm sure this has been posted before but it's worth a look again.Interactive map regarding what your local PD has purchased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1#body_armor

Click on each category to break it down

Cool. I see Pima County, Arizona, purchased 455 night vision pieces, 282 body armor pieces, and 151 assault rifles. Maricopa County Arizona purchased 1,696 night vision pieces, 406 assault rifles, and 4 mine-resistant vehicles, but... they're probably drooling over Santa Barbara County California's purchase of 2 grenade launchers and 6 helicopters.

Again, by "purchased" you mean "got for free."

That certainly makes me feel better.

 

[johnnycakes]

Regarding witnesses: to be fair, I didn't believe in "John" from the Treyvon Martin case either, until he actually showed up at trial. So I was wrong about that, and I could very well be wrong about this.

But none of this really matters. I think Wilson is going to be indicted. I think he should be indicted, based on what we know. I think he likely committed a crime. I think there's is going to be a trial, and we're likely to be discussing it for months to come, just like Zimmerman. And in the end, I predict Wilson will be acquitted, because there's too much reasonable doubt, just like Zimmerman. And there will be justifiable anger, but no further rioting. Just like Zimmerman.

I also think that there will be repercussions for the terrible way the police have behaved here. Some people will resign or be fired. There will be lawsuits.

But the most important and saddest part of this whole affair is that it won't really change anything. Police departments all over this country will continue to stereotype black youths- not because the cops are evil, but because they honestly believe that it's the best way to fight crime. African-Americans will continue to feel victimized by the police, while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for their problems. Liberals will continue to side with blacks in every situation, and blame the government, conservatives, the police, and themselves for the plight of so many African-Americans, but never the African-Americans themselves. Conservatives will continue to exonerate the police in every instance, blame blacks in every instance, and refuse to acknowledge that there is any racism at all, or that the American Dream doesn't always extend itself to certain minorities the same way that it does for white people.

And so we'll continue to have these sorts of incidents for decades to come. Rinse and repeat...

unless the feds step in there is no chance Wilson is indicted. The police force will never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever let it happen.

I thought it was the district attorney's office, and not the police, who decided to indict or not indict.

And I thought it was going to be the grand jury.

 

[Fennis]

Regarding witnesses: to be fair, I didn't believe in "John" from the Treyvon Martin case either, until he actually showed up at trial. So I was wrong about that, and I could very well be wrong about this.

But none of this really matters. I think Wilson is going to be indicted. I think he should be indicted, based on what we know. I think he likely committed a crime. I think there's is going to be a trial, and we're likely to be discussing it for months to come, just like Zimmerman. And in the end, I predict Wilson will be acquitted, because there's too much reasonable doubt, just like Zimmerman. And there will be justifiable anger, but no further rioting. Just like Zimmerman.

I also think that there will be repercussions for the terrible way the police have behaved here. Some people will resign or be fired. There will be lawsuits.

But the most important and saddest part of this whole affair is that it won't really change anything. Police departments all over this country will continue to stereotype black youths- not because the cops are evil, but because they honestly believe that it's the best way to fight crime. African-Americans will continue to feel victimized by the police, while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for their problems. Liberals will continue to side with blacks in every situation, and blame the government, conservatives, the police, and themselves for the plight of so many African-Americans, but never the African-Americans themselves. Conservatives will continue to exonerate the police in every instance, blame blacks in every instance, and refuse to acknowledge that there is any racism at all, or that the American Dream doesn't always extend itself to certain minorities the same way that it does for white people.

And so we'll continue to have these sorts of incidents for decades to come. Rinse and repeat...

unless the feds step in there is no chance Wilson is indicted. The police force will never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever let it happen.

I thought it was the district attorney's office, and not the police, who decided to indict or not indict.

the police provide the evidence

 

[Fennis]

Regarding witnesses: to be fair, I didn't believe in "John" from the Treyvon Martin case either, until he actually showed up at trial. So I was wrong about that, and I could very well be wrong about this.

But none of this really matters. I think Wilson is going to be indicted. I think he should be indicted, based on what we know. I think he likely committed a crime. I think there's is going to be a trial, and we're likely to be discussing it for months to come, just like Zimmerman. And in the end, I predict Wilson will be acquitted, because there's too much reasonable doubt, just like Zimmerman. And there will be justifiable anger, but no further rioting. Just like Zimmerman.

I also think that there will be repercussions for the terrible way the police have behaved here. Some people will resign or be fired. There will be lawsuits.

But the most important and saddest part of this whole affair is that it won't really change anything. Police departments all over this country will continue to stereotype black youths- not because the cops are evil, but because they honestly believe that it's the best way to fight crime. African-Americans will continue to feel victimized by the police, while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for their problems. Liberals will continue to side with blacks in every situation, and blame the government, conservatives, the police, and themselves for the plight of so many African-Americans, but never the African-Americans themselves. Conservatives will continue to exonerate the police in every instance, blame blacks in every instance, and refuse to acknowledge that there is any racism at all, or that the American Dream doesn't always extend itself to certain minorities the same way that it does for white people.

And so we'll continue to have these sorts of incidents for decades to come. Rinse and repeat...

unless the feds step in there is no chance Wilson is indicted. The police force will never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever let it happen.

I thought it was the district attorney's office, and not the police, who decided to indict or not indict.

And I thought it was going to be the grand jury.

the police provide the evidence

 

[Ditka Butkus]

My belief is the people on the street/protesters have already made their decision, and no amount of independent autopsies or investigations are going to be believed unless they come back in Brown's favor.

Could very well be true. But doesn't this also apply to Jim11, johnnycakes, Iod01, avoiding injuries, and yourself?

I don't know about the other guys, but I'm keeping an open mind...I don't think anywhere I have said Brown is guilty and the police are not.. or vice versa. In fact I gave a specific scenario of how when surrendering Brown may have been shot in the top of the head...and it went like this...Brown gets shot at..a miss...he turns around, puts his hands up..., gets shot numerous other times..., as he is falling forward (which seems logical after being shot) toward the officer...he takes a final shot to the top of the head.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm sure this has been posted before but it's worth a look again.Interactive map regarding what your local PD has purchased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1#body_armor

Click on each category to break it down

Cool. I see Pima County, Arizona, purchased 455 night vision pieces, 282 body armor pieces, and 151 assault rifles. Maricopa County Arizona purchased 1,696 night vision pieces, 406 assault rifles, and 4 mine-resistant vehicles, but... they're probably drooling over Santa Barbara County California's purchase of 2 grenade launchers and 6 helicopters.

Again, by "purchased" you mean "got for free."

That certainly makes me feel better.

The point is that PD's need equipment. They can do it one of two ways. Pay huge amount of money to get it. Or pay nothing to get it. Sure, the free way may mean that some of their equipment may be slightly more than what they need. But it saves them millions and millions of dollars. Do you want taxes raised? I'm guessing not. Which means that option 1 is really not an option at all.

 

[msommer]

I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men ...

Lod already brought this up ... but this point has to be better supported. Could well be true, but you can't expect an adversary in debate to take the statement at face value.

In addition to the numbers, which have been everywhere, and the clips and quotes from many members of the black community, which have also been everywhere, there's also this.

Think about the culture that has to exist in law enforcement for that to happen. That's not one bad actor. That's a litany of terrible cops, from the guy who arrested the wrong man without a word, to the booking officer who imprisoned him after his innocence was established, to the "number" of cops who beat the #### out of him for no reason, to every cop responsible for holding him for several days after that on four counts of property damage because he transferred blood onto their uniforms while they were beating the #### out of an innocent man. The guy was there for days. Multiple cops filed signed complaints alleging the property damage, complaints that were presumably read by many other cops. How many of them must have known about it. And not one of them said "what the #### is wrong with us?" That's not just a bad apple or two. That's a rotten tree.

And here's the thing- the only reason we know that story is because it's so outrageous and because the victim eventually brought a civil lawsuit for damages. It's possible (probable?) that there are many similar stories that go unreported.

Again, this is another example of where you site one example, then end your post trying to connect dots that aren't there. But, luckily, you never actually say it. So you can always have the comeback of "When did I say that?" or "I've never said such things."

The officer in this shooting had an exemplary work history. Why not draw the conclusion that all cops must be as great as him?

This exemplary work history was brought forward by his boss, the police chief of Ferguson, himself a pillar of integrity as evidenced by his handling of this case, in particular the open and forthcoming press conferences

If your sarcasm meter didn't twitch here, it's time to hand it in for service.

If you are going to immediately assume that police officers always lie, then the problem will never get better. Distrust works against both sides. Until that gap can be bridged, there is no chance for any community to ever come together. If communities are brought up to believe that the police are bad guys, that's how they will be perceived. If cops come out of the academy believing that all poor people are criminals, that's how they'll be treated. Both sides have to change here. Not just one.

People can scream all day that the police are racist, or that they treat the community poorly, but the reality is that somehow, they are going to have to put their faith in the police to make a change. Both sides are at fault here right now. And if we ever want it to change, both sides need to work on making it better.

I'm not assuming anything. Merely pointing out that if the police chief is even half as incompetent as he appears, then his comments on work record should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you are going to immediately disregard that public figures, police officers even, lie, then the problem will never be resolved

 

[TheIronSheik]

I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men ...

Lod already brought this up ... but this point has to be better supported. Could well be true, but you can't expect an adversary in debate to take the statement at face value.

In addition to the numbers, which have been everywhere, and the clips and quotes from many members of the black community, which have also been everywhere, there's also this.

Think about the culture that has to exist in law enforcement for that to happen. That's not one bad actor. That's a litany of terrible cops, from the guy who arrested the wrong man without a word, to the booking officer who imprisoned him after his innocence was established, to the "number" of cops who beat the #### out of him for no reason, to every cop responsible for holding him for several days after that on four counts of property damage because he transferred blood onto their uniforms while they were beating the #### out of an innocent man. The guy was there for days. Multiple cops filed signed complaints alleging the property damage, complaints that were presumably read by many other cops. How many of them must have known about it. And not one of them said "what the #### is wrong with us?" That's not just a bad apple or two. That's a rotten tree.

And here's the thing- the only reason we know that story is because it's so outrageous and because the victim eventually brought a civil lawsuit for damages. It's possible (probable?) that there are many similar stories that go unreported.

Again, this is another example of where you site one example, then end your post trying to connect dots that aren't there. But, luckily, you never actually say it. So you can always have the comeback of "When did I say that?" or "I've never said such things."

The officer in this shooting had an exemplary work history. Why not draw the conclusion that all cops must be as great as him?

This exemplary work history was brought forward by his boss, the police chief of Ferguson, himself a pillar of integrity as evidenced by his handling of this case, in particular the open and forthcoming press conferences

If your sarcasm meter didn't twitch here, it's time to hand it in for service.

If you are going to immediately assume that police officers always lie, then the problem will never get better. Distrust works against both sides. Until that gap can be bridged, there is no chance for any community to ever come together. If communities are brought up to believe that the police are bad guys, that's how they will be perceived. If cops come out of the academy believing that all poor people are criminals, that's how they'll be treated. Both sides have to change here. Not just one.

People can scream all day that the police are racist, or that they treat the community poorly, but the reality is that somehow, they are going to have to put their faith in the police to make a change. Both sides are at fault here right now. And if we ever want it to change, both sides need to work on making it better.

I'm not assuming anything. Merely pointing out that if the police chief is even half as incompetent as he appears, then his comments on work record should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you are going to immediately disregard that public figures, police officers even, lie, then the problem will never be resolved

I'm not sure I ever made that assumption.

 

[matttyl]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

Take a picture of your back with your webcam. What part of your arm is showing?

My triceps muscle. Also, if I were running away (as is the thought here), my forearms would be parallel to the ground (thus an extremely difficult target), my hands would be hidden by my body, and my biceps would facing away. So how did he have entry wounds to his hand, forearm, and biceps?

 

[msommer]

I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men ...

Lod already brought this up ... but this point has to be better supported. Could well be true, but you can't expect an adversary in debate to take the statement at face value.

In addition to the numbers, which have been everywhere, and the clips and quotes from many members of the black community, which have also been everywhere, there's also this.

Think about the culture that has to exist in law enforcement for that to happen. That's not one bad actor. That's a litany of terrible cops, from the guy who arrested the wrong man without a word, to the booking officer who imprisoned him after his innocence was established, to the "number" of cops who beat the #### out of him for no reason, to every cop responsible for holding him for several days after that on four counts of property damage because he transferred blood onto their uniforms while they were beating the #### out of an innocent man. The guy was there for days. Multiple cops filed signed complaints alleging the property damage, complaints that were presumably read by many other cops. How many of them must have known about it. And not one of them said "what the #### is wrong with us?" That's not just a bad apple or two. That's a rotten tree.

And here's the thing- the only reason we know that story is because it's so outrageous and because the victim eventually brought a civil lawsuit for damages. It's possible (probable?) that there are many similar stories that go unreported.

Again, this is another example of where you site one example, then end your post trying to connect dots that aren't there. But, luckily, you never actually say it. So you can always have the comeback of "When did I say that?" or "I've never said such things."

The officer in this shooting had an exemplary work history. Why not draw the conclusion that all cops must be as great as him?

This exemplary work history was brought forward by his boss, the police chief of Ferguson, himself a pillar of integrity as evidenced by his handling of this case, in particular the open and forthcoming press conferences

If your sarcasm meter didn't twitch here, it's time to hand it in for service.

If you are going to immediately assume that police officers always lie, then the problem will never get better. Distrust works against both sides. Until that gap can be bridged, there is no chance for any community to ever come together. If communities are brought up to believe that the police are bad guys, that's how they will be perceived. If cops come out of the academy believing that all poor people are criminals, that's how they'll be treated. Both sides have to change here. Not just one.

People can scream all day that the police are racist, or that they treat the community poorly, but the reality is that somehow, they are going to have to put their faith in the police to make a change. Both sides are at fault here right now. And if we ever want it to change, both sides need to work on making it better.

I'm not assuming anything. Merely pointing out that if the police chief is even half as incompetent as he appears, then his comments on work record should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you are going to immediately disregard that public figures, police officers even, lie, then the problem will never be resolved

I'm not sure I ever made that assumption.

And, neither did I, yet that did not stop you from writing I did.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Regarding witnesses: to be fair, I didn't believe in "John" from the Treyvon Martin case either, until he actually showed up at trial. So I was wrong about that, and I could very well be wrong about this.

But none of this really matters. I think Wilson is going to be indicted. I think he should be indicted, based on what we know. I think he likely committed a crime. I think there's is going to be a trial, and we're likely to be discussing it for months to come, just like Zimmerman. And in the end, I predict Wilson will be acquitted, because there's too much reasonable doubt, just like Zimmerman. And there will be justifiable anger, but no further rioting. Just like Zimmerman.

I also think that there will be repercussions for the terrible way the police have behaved here. Some people will resign or be fired. There will be lawsuits.

But the most important and saddest part of this whole affair is that it won't really change anything. Police departments all over this country will continue to stereotype black youths- not because the cops are evil, but because they honestly believe that it's the best way to fight crime. African-Americans will continue to feel victimized by the police, while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for their problems. Liberals will continue to side with blacks in every situation, and blame the government, conservatives, the police, and themselves for the plight of so many African-Americans, but never the African-Americans themselves. Conservatives will continue to exonerate the police in every instance, blame blacks in every instance, and refuse to acknowledge that there is any racism at all, or that the American Dream doesn't always extend itself to certain minorities the same way that it does for white people.

And so we'll continue to have these sorts of incidents for decades to come. Rinse and repeat...

unless the feds step in there is no chance Wilson is indicted. The police force will never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever let it happen.

I thought it was the district attorney's office, and not the police, who decided to indict or not indict.

Prosecutor's pops, a cop, was killed by a black man. No schtick.

 

[timschochet]

I would also like to indict Russell Wilson, David Wilson, and Wilson Phillips.

I have my reasons.

 

[Road Warriors]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/youtube-video-captures-purported-witness-backing-police-version-in-ferguson/

I'm not sure this is as damning as you are presenting it:

From the same video, though not highlighted:

The camera operator and another man are heard claiming that the police officer, who authorities later identified as Wilson, shot Brown as he held up his hands and said 'Don't shoot,' then stood over him and "shot him some more." But the camera operator acknowledges only hearing shots and not witnessing the shooting, and attributes the account to "that's what they said."

"They say he had his hands up and everything, and they just shot him anyway," the unidentified camera operator says.

I bolded the points I think make this less a corroboration of the police story.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Regarding witnesses: to be fair, I didn't believe in "John" from the Treyvon Martin case either, until he actually showed up at trial. So I was wrong about that, and I could very well be wrong about this.

But none of this really matters. I think Wilson is going to be indicted. I think he should be indicted, based on what we know. I think he likely committed a crime. I think there's is going to be a trial, and we're likely to be discussing it for months to come, just like Zimmerman. And in the end, I predict Wilson will be acquitted, because there's too much reasonable doubt, just like Zimmerman. And there will be justifiable anger, but no further rioting. Just like Zimmerman.

I also think that there will be repercussions for the terrible way the police have behaved here. Some people will resign or be fired. There will be lawsuits.

But the most important and saddest part of this whole affair is that it won't really change anything. Police departments all over this country will continue to stereotype black youths- not because the cops are evil, but because they honestly believe that it's the best way to fight crime. African-Americans will continue to feel victimized by the police, while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for their problems. Liberals will continue to side with blacks in every situation, and blame the government, conservatives, the police, and themselves for the plight of so many African-Americans, but never the African-Americans themselves. Conservatives will continue to exonerate the police in every instance, blame blacks in every instance, and refuse to acknowledge that there is any racism at all, or that the American Dream doesn't always extend itself to certain minorities the same way that it does for white people.

And so we'll continue to have these sorts of incidents for decades to come. Rinse and repeat...

unless the feds step in there is no chance Wilson is indicted. The police force will never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever let it happen.

I thought it was the district attorney's office, and not the police, who decided to indict or not indict.

Prosecutor's pops, a cop, was killed by a black man. No schtick.

Robert P. McCulloch, the prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County

The entire middle section of this NY Times piece is odd beyond belief. Why is McCulloch doing radio interviews? And saying stuff like this:

“Anyone who wants me off the case needs to call up the governor and express their opinion to him,” Mr. McCulloch told KTRS radio.

By failing to act, Mr. McCulloch said, the governor “undermines everything except the cover he has pulled over his head.” He told him to “man up” and make a decision so that the case will not be further delayed.

Seriously? This has to be the dumbest group of law enforcement officials in the country. Someone should be telling the prosecutor to ####.

 

[timschochet]

District Attorneys see these situations as a way to give themselves widespread publicity. It doesn't mean they won't make the correct decisions, or that they're not competent. But I'd be surprised to find a DA who wouldn't give interviews in this situation.

 

[Guest]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

Take a picture of your back with your webcam. What part of your arm is showing?

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/08/michael-brown-autopsy-shot-six-times

Why are his arms turned up like that? Is that how you walk around? Or run at people?

That autopsy diagram is just odd to me.

What if Brown had his arms out to the front and bent? Something like a football ref when he's going to give a pass interference call. One bullet causing more than one wound?

I have a hard time picturing how those wounds happen if Brown is going away from OR coming towards the officer.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

District Attorneys see these situations as a way to give themselves widespread publicity. It doesn't mean they won't make the correct decisions, or that they're not competent. But I'd be surprised to find a DA who wouldn't give interviews in this situation.

In situations where parts of the county are burning in riots?

I get DA's getting their faces out in front of high profile cases.

But, really? Here? Now? Calling out the Governor? What does "the governor 'undermines everything except the cover he has pulled over his head' even mean?

Seems really, really dumb.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/youtube-video-captures-purported-witness-backing-police-version-in-ferguson/

I'm not sure this is as damning as you are presenting it:

From the same video, though not highlighted:

The camera operator and another man are heard claiming that the police officer, who authorities later identified as Wilson, shot Brown as he held up his hands and said 'Don't shoot,' then stood over him and "shot him some more." But the camera operator acknowledges only hearing shots and not witnessing the shooting, and attributes the account to "that's what they said."

"They say he had his hands up and everything, and they just shot him anyway," the unidentified camera operator says.

I bolded the points I think make this less a corroboration of the police story.

First, I'm not presenting the alleged witness account as damning. I presented it as a witness account that may support the argument that Wilson was rushed. And I presented it as a witness account that is not necessarily less plausible than other witness accounts.

Second, the parts you highlighted are not the witness account I'm talking about. The video has commentary from the camera operator (which you've bolded) as well as commentary from several other people in the background. One man in the background, who claims to have witnessed the event, said that Brown double-backed and was approaching Wilson when shot.

 

[timschochet]

District Attorneys see these situations as a way to give themselves widespread publicity. It doesn't mean they won't make the correct decisions, or that they're not competent. But I'd be surprised to find a DA who wouldn't give interviews in this situation.

In situations where parts of the county are burning in riots?

I get DA's getting their faces out in front of high profile cases.

But, really? Here? Now? Calling out the Governor? What does "the governor 'undermines everything except the cover he has pulled over his head' even mean?

Seems really, really dumb.

Let me translate that for you:

The governor is preventing me from being the national star I want to be! I can only be that star if I get to indict Wilson, the sooner the better! He has to give me the green light, then someday I can be governor!

 

[Jim11]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

So a 6' 4" 290 lb man is no threat? Seems to me there's a better chance he WAS a threat than the officer shooting him for the h*ll of it.

 

[Road Warriors]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/youtube-video-captures-purported-witness-backing-police-version-in-ferguson/

I'm not sure this is as damning as you are presenting it:

From the same video, though not highlighted:

The camera operator and another man are heard claiming that the police officer, who authorities later identified as Wilson, shot Brown as he held up his hands and said 'Don't shoot,' then stood over him and "shot him some more." But the camera operator acknowledges only hearing shots and not witnessing the shooting, and attributes the account to "that's what they said."

"They say he had his hands up and everything, and they just shot him anyway," the unidentified camera operator says.

I bolded the points I think make this less a corroboration of the police story.

First, I'm not presenting the alleged witness account as damning. I presented it as a witness account that may support the argument that Wilson was rushed. And I presented it as a witness account that is not necessarily less plausible than other witness accounts.

Second, the parts you highlighted are not the witness account I'm talking about. The video has commentary from the camera operator (which you've bolded) as well as commentary from several other people in the background. One man in the background, who claims to have witnessed the event, said that Brown double-backed and was approaching Wilson when shot.

I see. I listened, but it was a jumble. I was going from the report rather than the video.

 

[kentric]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

thats absolutely true. But yesterday Henry Ford, among others, suggested some plausible alternatives. I have to say that:1. It seems unlikely to me that Wilson fired at Brown's back as Brown was running away. (If the first autopsy is accurate, then this DID NOT HAPPEN.

2. It seems even MORE unlikely to me that Brown ran away, turned around, and started charging an armed policeman. This sounds like the made up defense of Wilson and/or his supporters. Unless somebody finds a way to prove it, I think it's bs.

So I'm thinking there has to be a 3rd alternative. Maybe the kid ran away, the cop fired and missed (or winged him in the arm), the kid turned around and put his hands up, the cop fired the rest of the shots. That would match the 3 witnesses close enough. Or maybe something else happened.

So you think its unlikely that Wilson would fire at Brown's back while Brown was running away but that its likely he'd shoot at him with his hands up?

 

[boots11234]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

Just goes to show... the rioters aren't interested in justice.

Oh, they would be, if there was a justice store in town.

LOL! This is funny!

 

[timschochet]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

thats absolutely true. But yesterday Henry Ford, among others, suggested some plausible alternatives. I have to say that:1. It seems unlikely to me that Wilson fired at Brown's back as Brown was running away. (If the first autopsy is accurate, then this DID NOT HAPPEN.

2. It seems even MORE unlikely to me that Brown ran away, turned around, and started charging an armed policeman. This sounds like the made up defense of Wilson and/or his supporters. Unless somebody finds a way to prove it, I think it's bs.

So I'm thinking there has to be a 3rd alternative. Maybe the kid ran away, the cop fired and missed (or winged him in the arm), the kid turned around and put his hands up, the cop fired the rest of the shots. That would match the 3 witnesses close enough. Or maybe something else happened.

So you think its unlikely that Wilson would fire at Brown's back while Brown was running away but that its likely he'd shoot at him with his hands up?

Honestly, yes.

ETA. not likely, but more likely. We've all heard stories in which cops are angry and shoot to kill when it's unnecessary to do so, and then try to cover it up later. How often do we hear about unarmed guys charging armed cops? I never have.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

So a 6' 4" 290 lb man is no threat? Seems to me there's a better chance he WAS a threat than the officer shooting him for the h*ll of it.

How big is Wilson?

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Probably need to take it to the Lawyer Thread, but question:

Is the "Background Eyewitness" cell phone video even admissible in the Grand Jury hearing?

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is awesome...

They could have videotape of Brown charging Wilson with a chainsaw screaming "Im going to kill you" and a half dozen of you fools would be screaming that it was doctored

Subsequently they could have video of brown cowering in fear on his knees with Wilson blasting away and a half dozen of you fools would be screaming that it was doctored as well.

Both equally funny to me.

I guarantee you that if you produce a videotape of Brown charging Wilson with a chainsaw screaming "I'm going to kill you" I will stand up and shout about how perfectly reasonable it was for Wilson to shoot him.

 

[Henry Ford]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

Take a picture of your back with your webcam. What part of your arm is showing?

My triceps muscle. Also, if I were running away (as is the thought here), my forearms would be parallel to the ground (thus an extremely difficult target), my hands would be hidden by my body, and my biceps would facing away. So how did he have entry wounds to his hand, forearm, and biceps?

Every single witness has said that he was facing Wilson for the final shots. And look again at the part of the forearm that's hit. It's facing backwards if you're in a running position.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

IF there was no punching between the two men and Brown does charge Wilson is he allowed to start shooting?

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Probably need to take it to the Lawyer Thread, but question:

Is the "Background Eyewitness" cell phone video even admissible in the Grand Jury hearing?

Assume the guy who is talking is never found and produced.

 

[Henry Ford]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

Take a picture of your back with your webcam. What part of your arm is showing?

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/08/michael-brown-autopsy-shot-six-times

Why are his arms turned up like that? Is that how you walk around? Or run at people?

That autopsy diagram is just odd to me.

What if Brown had his arms out to the front and bent? Something like a football ref when he's going to give a pass interference call. One bullet causing more than one wound?

I have a hard time picturing how those wounds happen if Brown is going away from OR coming towards the officer.

Agreed. They had to have happened during different positions.

 

[kentric]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

How many black men have been shot by white police in that community in the past 10 years?

 

[Christo]

Meanwhile, the cops don't seem particularly concerned with the looting. Two separate accounts from business owners here (click to read the full passages). The second one is particularly damning- the only action taken by the cops after the looting was to kick out the volunteers who came to the market the next day to help clean and make repairs.

I don't see this as a big deal. There are large-scale protests, people running around throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Their priority is to maintain the large group of protesters and not let them get out-of-hand. Not respond to each and every incident in the middle of the protests.

 

[kentric]

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Let me make some separation here, and do with the understanding that you and I are more addressing the house than each other.

Tim's post #3044 pretty much lays aside the "victim charging at cop" theory, while I think it's still in play. Annother card I should lay down: I, personally, think the shooting can be justified even without Brown charging Wilson. IMHO, the shooting can be justified in a "fog of war" sense as soon as Brown turns to face Wilson (with the assumption that Brown was running away from Wilson at some point, which has yet to be established AFAIK).

Fog of war? According to witnesses, he was 35 feet away. If he's that fogged, doubt he'd do the number on Brown that he did from 35 feet away. I'd knock the fog of war thought out if the friend of Wilson is accurately portraying Wilson's side of the story.

 

[jon_mx]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

thats absolutely true. But yesterday Henry Ford, among others, suggested some plausible alternatives. I have to say that:1. It seems unlikely to me that Wilson fired at Brown's back as Brown was running away. (If the first autopsy is accurate, then this DID NOT HAPPEN.

2. It seems even MORE unlikely to me that Brown ran away, turned around, and started charging an armed policeman. This sounds like the made up defense of Wilson and/or his supporters. Unless somebody finds a way to prove it, I think it's bs.

So I'm thinking there has to be a 3rd alternative. Maybe the kid ran away, the cop fired and missed (or winged him in the arm), the kid turned around and put his hands up, the cop fired the rest of the shots. That would match the 3 witnesses close enough. Or maybe something else happened.

So you think its unlikely that Wilson would fire at Brown's back while Brown was running away but that its likely he'd shoot at him with his hands up?

I am 100 percent certain it is the 4th alternative.

4. Tim has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Christo]

I'm sure this has been posted before but it's worth a look again.Interactive map regarding what your local PD has purchased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1#body_armor

Click on each category to break it down

Cool. I see Pima County, Arizona, purchased 455 night vision pieces, 282 body armor pieces, and 151 assault rifles. Maricopa County Arizona purchased 1,696 night vision pieces, 406 assault rifles, and 4 mine-resistant vehicles, but... they're probably drooling over Santa Barbara County California's purchase of 2 grenade launchers and 6 helicopters.

Again, by "purchased" you mean "got for free."

That certainly makes me feel better.

The point is that PD's need equipment. They can do it one of two ways. Pay huge amount of money to get it. Or pay nothing to get it. Sure, the free way may mean that some of their equipment may be slightly more than what they need. But it saves them millions and millions of dollars. Do you want taxes raised? I'm guessing not. Which means that option 1 is really not an option at all.

The Chicago PD doesn't need a mine-resistant armored vehicle. If it does, we're ####ed anyway.

 

[kentric]

What's sad is the people, some of whom are here, who are in the camp of those who rip the cops no matter what they do.

The cops stand by and watch and don't stop looting? It's the cops' fault.

The cops try to keep some order by not letting protesting escalate and get out of hand? It's the cops' fault.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I won't say they have handled this as well as they could have, but remember that they have been thrown into a very difficult situation and their lives are on the line. I think some forget that.

I've documented several times why I think this escalation is primarily the fault of the police. They have done many, many things wrong- well beyond "not handling this as well as they could have." It would take days to catalog all the things they've done to make things worse.

But for proof, consider last Thursday night. After the Ferguson police came under increased media and political scrutiny (that Wednesday was the day of the recorded arrests of two journalists and is when Rand Paul and Claire McCaskill and a few other national politicians made public statements decrying the police conduct), the St. Louis police were called in and took a completely different approach- no weapons pointed at the protestors, no us vs them mentality, . That was the day that everything seemed back to normal. Better than that, even. It was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.

What happens the next morning? The Ferguson PD has their ridiculous PC where they name the shooter and simultaneously release the robbery video, don't bother to mention that the Brown traffic stop was unrelated to the robbery, give no other updates on the investigation, and take no questions. And guess what? That night we were right back where we started, all the outrage came right back to the front.

Maybe that's just correlation and not causation. But I doubt it. And I consider that the cops' fault.

So you're blaming looting on the police because they released the robbery video???

The professional opportunist looters may have something to say about this. You're besmirching their reputation.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Meanwhile, the cops don't seem particularly concerned with the looting. Two separate accounts from business owners here (click to read the full passages). The second one is particularly damning- the only action taken by the cops after the looting was to kick out the volunteers who came to the market the next day to help clean and make repairs.

I don't see this as a big deal. There are large-scale protests, people running around throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Their priority is to maintain the large group of protesters and not let them get out-of-hand. Not respond to each and every incident in the middle of the protests.

They found time to kick out the people who were helping clean up and repair one of the stores (second passage).

 

[Christo]

Probably need to take it to the Lawyer Thread, but question:

Is the "Background Eyewitness" cell phone video even admissible in the Grand Jury hearing?

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3177&context=lawreview

 

[TobiasFunke]

What's sad is the people, some of whom are here, who are in the camp of those who rip the cops no matter what they do.

The cops stand by and watch and don't stop looting? It's the cops' fault.

The cops try to keep some order by not letting protesting escalate and get out of hand? It's the cops' fault.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I won't say they have handled this as well as they could have, but remember that they have been thrown into a very difficult situation and their lives are on the line. I think some forget that.

I've documented several times why I think this escalation is primarily the fault of the police. They have done many, many things wrong- well beyond "not handling this as well as they could have." It would take days to catalog all the things they've done to make things worse.

But for proof, consider last Thursday night. After the Ferguson police came under increased media and political scrutiny (that Wednesday was the day of the recorded arrests of two journalists and is when Rand Paul and Claire McCaskill and a few other national politicians made public statements decrying the police conduct), the St. Louis police were called in and took a completely different approach- no weapons pointed at the protestors, no us vs them mentality, . That was the day that everything seemed back to normal. Better than that, even. It was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.

What happens the next morning? The Ferguson PD has their ridiculous PC where they name the shooter and simultaneously release the robbery video, don't bother to mention that the Brown traffic stop was unrelated to the robbery, give no other updates on the investigation, and take no questions. And guess what? That night we were right back where we started, all the outrage came right back to the front.

Maybe that's just correlation and not causation. But I doubt it. And I consider that the cops' fault.

So you're blaming looting on the police because they released the robbery video???

The professional opportunist looters may have something to say about this. You're besmirching their reputation.

No. I'm blaming the re-escalation of tensions on the bungled press conference, part of which was releasing the robbery video without mentioning that the initial stop was unrelated.

Ever noticed that every single time someone tries to summarize someone else's post in a question they're actually just getting it wrong for dramatic effect? Here's an idea- if you want to discuss what I said, discuss what I said. Reply, put my words in bold, and take issue with them if you want. Don't translate for me. You suck at it.

 

[Christo]

Meanwhile, the cops don't seem particularly concerned with the looting. Two separate accounts from business owners here (click to read the full passages). The second one is particularly damning- the only action taken by the cops after the looting was to kick out the volunteers who came to the market the next day to help clean and make repairs.

I don't see this as a big deal. There are large-scale protests, people running around throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Their priority is to maintain the large group of protesters and not let them get out-of-hand. Not respond to each and every incident in the middle of the protests.

They found time to kick out the people who were helping clean up and repair one of the stores (second passage).

You said that was the next day. Things haven't heated up until well into the evening, right? Different times, different problems, different priorities.

 

[kentric]

Contradicted by the recorded account immediately after the incident. Someone who did not know they were being recorded at the time.

To be fair, I don't think this "witness in the background" video/audio has yet been authenticated. I do know that authorities are looking for those heard in the video.

I agree on the authentification side, but if it isn't doctored, I'd personally find it more credible than some of the other eyewitnesses' statements because 1. it occured right after the event and not days after the event and 2. I find it much less likely for someone in that situation/area (where people are negative toward the police) to make a statement supporting the police.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Meanwhile, the cops don't seem particularly concerned with the looting. Two separate accounts from business owners here (click to read the full passages). The second one is particularly damning- the only action taken by the cops after the looting was to kick out the volunteers who came to the market the next day to help clean and make repairs.

I don't see this as a big deal. There are large-scale protests, people running around throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Their priority is to maintain the large group of protesters and not let them get out-of-hand. Not respond to each and every incident in the middle of the protests.

They found time to kick out the people who were helping clean up and repair one of the stores (second passage).

You said that was the next day. Things haven't heated up until well into the evening, right? Different times, different problems, different priorities.

Fair point. Obviously clearing out volunteer help is less than ideal, but you're right, their priorities are different during the day vs at night.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm sure this has been posted before but it's worth a look again.Interactive map regarding what your local PD has purchased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1#body_armor

Click on each category to break it down

Cool. I see Pima County, Arizona, purchased 455 night vision pieces, 282 body armor pieces, and 151 assault rifles. Maricopa County Arizona purchased 1,696 night vision pieces, 406 assault rifles, and 4 mine-resistant vehicles, but... they're probably drooling over Santa Barbara County California's purchase of 2 grenade launchers and 6 helicopters.

Again, by "purchased" you mean "got for free."

That certainly makes me feel better.

The point is that PD's need equipment. They can do it one of two ways. Pay huge amount of money to get it. Or pay nothing to get it. Sure, the free way may mean that some of their equipment may be slightly more than what they need. But it saves them millions and millions of dollars. Do you want taxes raised? I'm guessing not. Which means that option 1 is really not an option at all.

The Chicago PD doesn't need a mine-resistant armored vehicle. If it does, we're ####ed anyway.

If you would have read my post, I note that. But the issue is, they do need a transport vehicle. So they can either purchase one for a couple hundred thousand. OR.... they can get a free mine resistant armored vehicle from the army. Which would you prefer?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

So a 6' 4" 290 lb man is no threat? Seems to me there's a better chance he WAS a threat than the officer shooting him for the h*ll of it.

How big is Wilson?

Just tall enough to see over the fence.

 

[Christo]

I'm sure this has been posted before but it's worth a look again.Interactive map regarding what your local PD has purchased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1#body_armor

Click on each category to break it down

Cool. I see Pima County, Arizona, purchased 455 night vision pieces, 282 body armor pieces, and 151 assault rifles. Maricopa County Arizona purchased 1,696 night vision pieces, 406 assault rifles, and 4 mine-resistant vehicles, but... they're probably drooling over Santa Barbara County California's purchase of 2 grenade launchers and 6 helicopters.

Again, by "purchased" you mean "got for free."

That certainly makes me feel better.

The point is that PD's need equipment. They can do it one of two ways. Pay huge amount of money to get it. Or pay nothing to get it. Sure, the free way may mean that some of their equipment may be slightly more than what they need. But it saves them millions and millions of dollars. Do you want taxes raised? I'm guessing not. Which means that option 1 is really not an option at all.

The Chicago PD doesn't need a mine-resistant armored vehicle. If it does, we're ####ed anyway.

If you would have read my post, I note that. But the issue is, they do need a transport vehicle. So they can either purchase one for a couple hundred thousand. OR.... they can get a free mine resistant armored vehicle from the army. Which would you prefer?

A couple of hundred thousand dollars? It's Chicago. They could borrow a CTA bus for the afternoon.

 

[matttyl]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

Take a picture of your back with your webcam. What part of your arm is showing?

My triceps muscle. Also, if I were running away (as is the thought here), my forearms would be parallel to the ground (thus an extremely difficult target), my hands would be hidden by my body, and my biceps would facing away. So how did he have entry wounds to his hand, forearm, and biceps?

Every single witness has said that he was facing Wilson for the final shots. And look again at the part of the forearm that's hit. It's facing backwards if you're in a running position.

Ok, and given where the entry wounds are it looks like he was facing Wilson for all of the shots.

And look again at the part of the forearm that's hit - it's facing forward if you're in a running position (you move your arms when you run).